1

EVALUATION OF PERSONAL CHEMICAL VAPOR PROTECTION

FOR PATROL AND TACTICAL LAW ENFORCEMENT


Dr. Paul D. Fedele
William L. Lake
Victor J. Arca
Stephen M. Marshall
US Army SBCCOM
5183 Blackhawk Road
APG, MD 21010-5424

COL David B. Mitchell
Superintendent, Maryland State Police
1201 Reisterstown Road
Pikesville, MD 21208-3899


ABSTRACT

In Domestic Preparedness efforts, the US Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command
and the Maryland State Police, have evaluated personal chemical protective systems for use in
patrol and tactical functions in law enforcement. Various Level C, impermeable and charcoal
impregnated, vapor-absorptive, air-permeable protective clothing ensembles, worn with the MSA
Millenium respiratory protective mask/butyl hood, and seven-mil butyl rubber gloves, have been
considered. In cooperation with the Maryland State Police Special Tactical Assault Team
Element (STATE), these ensembles were tested using the man-in-simulant test (MIST) processes.
The test results have been used to indicate the chemical hazards that protective system users can
be expected to encounter, should they operate in chemical warfare agent vapor contamination.
This information is helping law enforcement personnel select personal chemical protective
equipment and design chemical incident response plans that can successfully manage chemical
warfare agent risks.




INTRODUCTION

The military community has dealt with the threat of chemical and biological warfare for over
86 years
1
. Now, the civil community faces that threat, through possible terrorist attacks involving
chemical and biological warfare agents. Although such incidents are expected to remain less
likely than many other civil emergencies, without preparation and awareness, the potential
consequences of chemical or biological terrorism are significant.

Report Documentation Page
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE
00 JAN 2002
2. REPORT TYPE
N/A
3. DATES COVERED
-
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Evaluation Of Personal Chemical Vapor Protection For Patrol And
Tactical Law Enforcement
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
US Army SBCCOM 5183 Blackhawk Road APG, MD 21010-5424;
Maryland State Police 1201 Reisterstown Road Pikesville, MD
21208-3899
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITORS ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITORS REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release, distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This article is from ADA409494 Proceedings of the 2001 ECBC Scientific Conference on Chemical and
Biological Defense Research, 6-8 March , Marriotts Hunt Valley Inn, Hunt Valley, MD., The original
document contains color images.
14. ABSTRACT
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF
ABSTRACT
UU
18. NUMBER
OF PAGES
7
19a. NAME OF
RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT
unclassified
b. ABSTRACT
unclassified
c. THIS PAGE
unclassified
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
2
The Maryland State Police (MSP) and the US Army Soldier and Biological Chemical
Command (SBCCOM) are participating in the Domestic Preparedness program to help civilian
communities prepare to deal with terrorism involving chemical and biological warfare agents.
The Domestic Preparedness program provides civilian responders with the training and awareness
that they need to develop safe and effective operational procedures for responding to such
incidents.

To help civilian responders develop safe operational plans for response to terrorism involving
chemical warfare agents (CWA), the MSP and the Improved Response Program have evaluated
the hazards faced by personnel using various individual chemical protective ensembles, in various
roles of law enforcement. By testing chemical protective ensembles in operational use scenarios,
analyses have been performed to indicate approximate exposure times that will begin to result in
chemical effect hazards to persons using the protective ensembles in CWA vapors. This
information is being used to help responders select chemical protective systems and develop safe
and effective operational procedures for the equipments use.


PATROL AND TACTICAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ROLES

The local law enforcement community will perform many functions associated with a CWA
terrorism incident. At the scene of a chemical terrorism incident, local law enforcement patrol
officers may evacuate downwind hazard regions and maintain perimeter security. Perimeter
security involves controlling traffic and controlling entry to, and exit from, the scene of the
incident.

Law enforcement tactical teams, or SWAT teams, often perform high-risk entries. In tactical
situations, the MSP employ the Special Tactical Assault Team Element (STATE). The MSP
STATE team may perform hostage rescue, raid a suspected chemical terrorist facility, or
apprehend a suspected chemical terrorist. Two principle modes of operation are employed. The
stealth mode is used to close-in on perpetrators, without making the perpetrators aware of the
teams presence. It involves quiet, slow, deliberate actions and may be a prolonged operation,
lasting for many hours. The STATE also uses the dynamic mode, in which a site is quickly
moved into and through, securing it in minutes. Dynamic operations are fast. They are
performed quickly, before the perpetrators recognize the situation, or are able to respond.

In patrol and tactical operations, personnel may encounter CWA contamination. Different
levels of CWA hazards are expected in different roles. In a chemical release, the security
perimeter is normally placed a safe distance from the site of the release. However, changing
meteorological conditions and uncertainty regarding the chemical release may result in vapor
hazards at the perimeter. A perimeter security officer also may contact liquid contamination
carried from the scene by a contaminated victim or perpetrator. The amount of contamination
expected at the perimeter is small. Tactical missions may involve higher levels of chemical
contamination. Chemical warfare agents, in the form of liquids, vapors and aerosols, may be
encountered as a tactical team enters an area. A perpetrator may attack a tactical team with CWA
or disseminate CWA in an attempt to prevent the tactical team from reaching their objective.

Individual chemical protective equipment will help reduce the hazards of CWA exposures that
might occur in these operations. This work does not address law enforcement roles in HAZMAT
operations. It is limited to assessing protective capability against chemical warfare agent (CWA)
vapors that may be encountered by law enforcement personnel engaged in the perimeter patrol
and tactical operations described.
3


CHEMICAL PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS

For the perimeter control mission, various impermeable, chemical-resistant, hooded, protective
overgarment clothing systems (Level C
2
), were tested. All clothing systems were worn with the
MSA Millenium Gas Mask/butyl hood, and seven-mil, butyl rubber gloves. In addition, the
Maryland State Police Standard Duty Uniform was tested. The Maryland State Police Standard
Duty Uniform also was worn under all Level C overgarments. The following clothing systems
were tested for the perimeter control mission.

MSP Standard Duty Uniform
Tyvec Protective Wear
TM
coverall
Dupont Tychem 9400 suit
Kappler CPF4 suit
Dupont Tychem SL suit
Tyvek Protech F suit

Figure 1 shows an MSP STATE officer donning a
chemical protective suit in patrol tests. Details of
each of these protective ensembles are available
3
.

For tactical missions, the impermeable
protective systems were found to create too much
noise during movement. Air-permeable, charcoal-
impregnated, military style, chemical protective
systems appeared to be better suited for tactical
missions. Tactical mission testing was performed
with air-permeable, charcoal-impregnated,
chemical protective overgarments and
undergarments, including the following.

Hammer Two-Piece Chemical Protective Overgarment
Saratoga Chemical Protective Undergarment
Hammer One-piece Chemical Protective Overgarment
Giat SWAT One-piece Chemical Protective Overgarment
TOMPS Two-Piece Chemical Protective Overgarment
LANX Chemical Protective Undergarment

When the chemical protective overgarment included an integrated hood, the MSA Millenium
mask hood was worn under the integrated hood, tucked fully beneath the overgarment. Chemical
protective gloves were also worn, when supplied with the clothing ensemble. Details of these
protective garments are available from their manufacturers.

Along with each of these protective systems, the MSP Special Tactical Assault Team Element
(STATE) standard duty uniform, consisting of camouflaged fatigues and leather boots, was worn
during each test. The MSP STATE team standard duty uniform was worn under the chemical
protective overgarments and over the chemical protective undergarments.



Figure 1. Donning personal protective
system.

4
OPERATIONAL TESTING PROCEDURES

The CWA protection offered by these chemical protective ensembles was measured using the
Man-In-Simulant Test (MIST) procedure
4
, at the Edgewood Area of Aberdeen Proving Ground.
MIST fully assesses the protection offered by complete protective ensembles by measuring the
absorption of chemical vapors at the surface of the skin, and compares that to the absorption that
occurs at the skin without any protection. MIST is used by the US Army, in development of its
personal chemical protective ensembles, and by the Domestic Preparedness program, in defining
operational protective performance of personal protective systems
5
.

MIST subjects wear full protective ensembles, in vapors, while performing activities that they
would perform in an actual operation. MIST does not place people at risk of exposure to
chemical agents because MIST uses a
chemical simulant in place of chemical agent
vapors. Standard fabric penetration
measurements are used to identify simulants
that penetrate protective systems at the same
rates as chemical agent vapors. Such
identified simulants are then be used to
measure protective ensemble performance.

MIST uses passive samplers, which sample
by absorption. These are placed on the skin,
so they can accurately measure the absorption
of the vapor at the skin surface. Sampler
locations for these tests are illustrated in
Figure 2. Figure 3 shows samplers being
applied to MSP STATE team personnel
before a test.

During MIST, volunteers perform actions
specific to their operation. Tests last for 30
minutes. Specific detailed actions have been
defined for the patrol officer tests
6
. Tactical
team chemical protection was measured with
the full MSP STATE team as they performed
mock raids at an SBCCOM warehouse
building. The warehouse was sealed so that it
could contain a stable vapor concentration.
The interior of the warehouse was configured
with moveable partitions. The physical
layout was altered to present a variable floor
lay-out to the MSP STATE team. Each MSP
STATE team member performed their normal
functions during the test. During the first 3
minutes of exposure, the STATE team used
dynamic tactics to sweep through the
warehouse test area. In the following 27
minutes, stealth tactics were used. The
Figures 4-6, below , show STATE team
personnel during tests.

Figure 3. MIST samplers being placed on
MSP STATE personnel.


Figure 2. MIST sampler locations.
5

After the 30 minute vapor exposure, protective
clothing is removed. Vapor samplers are
collected in a clean room. Analysis of each
sampler yields the dosage received at the skin.
The overall protective performance of the
chemical protective system is determined by the
Body Region Hazard Analysis
7
.

Respiratory protective mask performance was
not measured for this study. Mask performance is
represented by the NIOSH nominal protection
factor (PF) for negative pressure respirators; 50
8

and by a PF value that is easily achieved by
modern negative pressure respirators, 6666
9
.

HAZARD ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS

Chemical hazards are determined by the
chemical vapor concentration in the environment,
the time spent in the concentration, the
performance of the protective system, and the
toxicity of the chemical agent vapor. By
combining vapor concentration, protective system
performance, and endpoint dosages for specified
chemical agent effects, estimates of the exposure
time required to reach the specified effect endpoint
are obtained. Times required to reach specified
effect endpoints are called stay times. At the stay
time, exposures are not risk-free, but CWA effects
are expected to be non-life-threatening.

To determine stay times, values for endpoint
dosages associated with chemical agent vapor
effects, are taken from a recent review by elements
of the National Research Council (NRC)
10
.

Stay times are assessed at three levels of
chemical agent vapor concentration: perimeter,
highly lethal, and saturation. The perimeter
concentration corresponds to the maximum
concentration expected at the down wind edge of
the day-protect zone, as specified in the 2000
Emergency Response Guidebook
11
, for a 55 gallon
spill chemical agent. Details of dosage estimates
for this situation are given by Stuempfle
12
. We
refer to highly lethal concentrations as the
concentration of chemical agent estimated to
produce 95% lethality among unprotected persons exposed for 15 minutes. Lethal effect dosages
recommended by the NRC are used to determine highly lethal concentrations. Worst-case vapor

Figure 5. Approaching the warehouse.

Figure 4. Planning movement.

Figure 6. Covering with shouldered
weapons.
6
concentrations are referred to as saturation concentrations and are taken as saturation at a
temperature of 18C (65F).

With agent concentrations; NRC-recommended threshold effects endpoint dosages; and
protective ensemble performance, we have calculated stay times for various protective clothing
ensembles and respiratory protection levels, for various threshold effects. Results are shown in
Table 1.

TABLE 1. Minimum Stay Times (Minutes).
Respiratory
Mask PF
Perimeter (Day
Protect Zone)
Concentration
Highly Lethal
Concentration
Saturation (at 65F)
Concentration
50 850 3 0.007
6666 1500 20
*
1
*
For nerve agents, the minimum stay time for the highly lethal concentration is 400 minutes.

Table 1 provides worst-case (shortest) stay times for worst case chemical agents when wearing
worst case clothes for perimeter concentrations. Table 1 values for highly lethal concentrations
were also calculated using worst-case parameters, however, the stand-alone standard duty
uniform was excluded as it provides minimal skin protection. With a PF of 50, the protective
respirator is the limiting factor when determining stay times, because of threshold effects
associated with the eyes. At saturated concentrations, stay times remain limited by threshold eye
effects due to exposure to GB, for both values of respiratory PF. This is because GB has a much
greater volatility that HD.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemical hazards involve many variables. By performing a quantitative hazard assessment,
these many variables can be combined to yield specific results that provide useful information
that will make a difference in field operations involving chemical hazards. By determining
minimum stay times under a range of field conditions, useful guidance can be developed. The
assessed stay times and the limiting variables lead us to the following guidance. This guidance
does not consider operational hazards posed by contact with liquid agents. These remain to be
addressed. Chemical protective gloves are recommended for the most likely scenarios where
liquid chemical agents may be contacted.

On the perimeter of a CWA terrorism incident, chemical protective clothing systems
are of secondary importance to respiratory protection for vapor protection.
The negative pressure respirator, with a respiratory PF of 50, will be the limiting
factor in CWA operations and initial operations-degrading symptoms will be eye
effects.
The impermeable suits that were tested made too much noise for stealth operations.
The charcoal protective suits that were tested should be considered applicable for
escape purposes only, if a CWA should be released in interior spaces, during tactical
operations.
None of the tested ensembles are suitable for tactical/stealth operations in enclosed
spaces where CWA have been released.


7

REFERENCES

1
SBCCOM, A Brief History of the Edgewood Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, February
2001, January 2001, available at: EA History (PowerPoint Presentation),
http://cbnet/INTRANET/WHATSNEW/menu.html
2
US Department of Transportation, 2000 North American Emergency Response Guidebook,
January 2001, available at: http://hazmat.dot.gov/erg2000/erg2000.pdf .
3
SBCCOM, Chemical Protective Clothing for Law Enforcement Patrol Officers and Emergency
Medical Services when responding to Terrorism with Chemical Weapons, November 1999,
available at: http://dp.sbccom.army.mil/fr/cw_irp_cpc_lepo_ems_report.pdf .
4
Kocher, T., Man-In-Simulant Test (MIST) Test Operations Procedure (TOP), US Army Test
and Evaluation Command, TOP 10-2-022, AMSTE-RP-702-107, 10 April 1996.
5
Fedele, P, Two Test Methods for Personal Protective Clothing Systems in Chemical
Environments, October 1999, available at: http://dp.sbccom.army.mil/fr/cwirp_aero-mistdep-
7.pdf .
6
Ibid., Reference 3.
7
Fedele, PD, and Nelson, DC, A Method of Assessing Full Individual Protective System
Performance Against Cutaneous Effects of Aerosol and Vapor Exposures, US Army Edgewood
Research Development and Engineering Center, APG, MD, October, 1995; Section 1-3 Body
Region Hazard Analysis Process included in report for the JSLIST Program: Cronin, TD, Final
Report for the Development of the Man-In-Simulant Test (MIST) Method for Evaluation of
Chemical/Biological (CB) Protective Garments, TECOM Project No. 8-EI-825-ABO-004, US
Army Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah, April 1996.
8
NIOSH RDL, 78-108, 5-2000, K:\Bill\APFtable.
9
Program Manager for NBC Defense, private communication, February 2001.
10
Review of Acute Human-Toxicity Estimates for Selected Chemical-Warfare Agents,
Subcommittee on Toxicity Values for Selected Nerve and Vesicant Agents, Committee on
Toxicology, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences,
National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1997, available at
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309057493/html/index.html .
11
Ibid., Reference 2.
12
KL Stuempfle and AK Stuempfle, Visual Comparison Of Perimeter Challenge Levels From
Model Predictions of Chemical Incidents, Poster Paper, 2001 Chemical and Biological Defense
Conference, March, 2001.